Smoking, Drinking and Doping while Pregnant

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

I’m sure this has been brought up before, but I didn’t want to violate necro-thread rules, so I’m opening it back up for discussion.
Many studies* demonstrate that smoking, consuming alcohol, and using certain drugs while pregnant can have adverse effects on the child.


Taking this into consideration, what do you think, if anything should be done to address this issue? Should a woman be penalized for engaging in such behavior if she’s pregnant? Most leftists I’m sure would object that this approach is anti-women and chauvinistic, of course. And I’m sure, those on the libertarian side have their own arguments against.


If not punishment, then how about some simple discouragement or other non-coercive approaches?

This controversy also seems to overlap a lot with the abortion debate. If you believe that women shouldn’t have complete volition to do whatever they want while pregnant because it may harm the fetus, then it would seem that you’re verging on the use of pro-life rhetoric.

Personally, I think that we need to examine what motivates a woman to drink/smoke/use drugs while pregnant. Overwhelming stress is certainly a factor, I'd say. Perhaps that should be addressed first and foremost? We can determine what causes stress such as unemployment, underemployment, lack of propitious living conditions, etc. Furthermore, it could be a lack of information. If this is the case, then maybe a public awareness campaign of some sort would be another solution, with regards to prevention anyway. I think a coercive approach imposes a huge cost on women(many probably working class) and punishes them, when in many circumstances they're the victims.


So what do ya’ll think?







*On the risks of smoking while pregnant, see here (http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/pp/womens/obsmoking/smokingwhilepregnant.html). On the risks of drinking while pregnant, see here (http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/5000/5534.html). On doping(using a range of illicit drugs) while pregnant and their possible effects on the fetus, see here (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancyhealth/illegaldrugs.html).

[Havet]

Education to the greatest extent possible. If not, Ostracism/Shunning

[Dr Mindbender]

I think a woman's choice over whether or not she smokes, takes recreational drugs or drinks while pregnant should be based entirely on whether or not she intends to have the baby or not, simple as that. Fine, do what you want with your body, but be responsible for those who need you and cant take responsibility for themselves. I dont even see why it should be a politically partisan issue.

Someone who plans to become a mother (shouldn't) doesn't jeopardise the baby's material interests by gambling and spending all their money on useless crap, so why should health be any different?

[whore]

non-coercive only.

i'm not sure that shamming and ostracism is a good solution. in fact, i think it is a bad solution.

education, lots of it. and help for the baby (including, potentially, taking the child away from it's mother if she has demonstrated she isn't capable of looking after it).

that last one is controversial i'm sure. but, we all agree yes, that children aren't property? (i damn well hope we all agree...). if a person demonstrates they don't care about the well being of a child, when there are various options for preventing that (up to, and including abortion, free, and on demand, no questions asked)...

if a women smokes, and drinks excessively, when she knows she wants the child that will come out of her, after being educated of the dangers, and having the entire community supportting her (to reduce stress etc.)...

[ComradeMan]

Can I just have a rant here....:D

For fuck's sakes, does it need a left position on something so idiotically obvious? Of course a woman who is pregnant and intends to carry through the pregnancy and continues to smoke, drink and whatever else is an irresponsible %&%$%!

Does it need a left stance?

Really?

Really- do we need a left stance on drink driving? Do we need a left stance on other stuff? Why do we have to politicise everything?

Is there a left stance on wiping your ass?

Why do we spend so much time debating bullshit matters that are so downright matter-of-fact?

Non-coercive does not mean you grab a child who is about to put its fingers in the electric-socket and tell it off.

[Bud Struggle]

Can I just have a rant here....:D

For fuck's sakes, does it need a left position on something so idiotically obvious? Of course a woman who is pregnant and intends to carry through the pregnancy and continues to smoke, drink and whatever else is an irresponsible %&%$%!

Then maybe what the woman has in it's womb is worth something more than meaninless blob of matter.

And then maybe it shouldn't be aborted on a whim.

See the problem?

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

For fuck's sakes, does it need a left position on something so idiotically obvious? Of course a woman who is pregnant and intends to carry through the pregnancy and continues to smoke, drink and whatever else is an irresponsible %&%$%!

You'd be surprised actually that the answer appears not to be so clear-cut on this topic, to leftists anyway. Some feminists seem to have a few misgivings about even advising women that it may not be a good idea to drink, smoke, etc. while pregnant. Check out this old thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-pregnant-women-t66854/index.html?p=1030090&highlight=fetal+alcohol+syndrome) on this very issue. See TC's posts in particular.




Is there a left stance on wiping your ass?


Probably. I have to check my leftist instructional manual. Should be under radical bathroom etiquette.

[ComradeMan]

You'd be surprised actually that the answer appears not to be so clear-cut on this topic, to leftists anyway. Some feminists seem to have a few misgivings about even advising women that it may not be a good idea to drink, smoke, etc. while pregnant. Check out this old thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-pregnant-women-t66854/index.html?p=1030090&highlight=fetal+alcohol+syndrome) on this very issue. See TC's posts in particular.




Probably. I have to check my leftist instructional manual. Should be under radical bathroom etiquette.


Glad to see you appreciate where I'm coming from....! ;)

[Raúl Duke]

Do what is already done. Include in sex ed the info of risk of problems that smoking, doing certain drugs, and drinking has on the fetus.

I don't think there's much that can be done besides that...

I agree with whore.

[khad]

See TC's posts in particular.
That person believed that cocaine had no negative health effects and should be given to children. At the same time, she felt that formula corporations were being oppressed by being barred from advertising by the breastfeeding lobby.

I think the left would do well to dismiss out of hand the hedonistic narcissism of fanatics.

[Glenn Beck]

If you're drinking and smoking while pregnant in a socialist society where there would no doubt be extensive health and educational resources for prospective mothers you're a fucking idiot. Though this may come as a shock to some, most people are actually of average intelligence, and not fucking idiots. I'd imagine with the appropriate level of access to social services this would be a rare problem indeed.

Since this is kind of one of those "OMG BUT WHAT IF THREADS" though I'll play ball. In my ideal Stalinist utopia someone doing this would get a stern talking to and be compelled to stay clean or get an abortion. I don't think fetuses have rights but birthing someone into the world who you inflicted all sorts of defects and health issues on for no good goddamn reason is clearly violating the rights of a real person.

[khad]

Since this is kind of one of those "OMG BUT WHAT IF THREADS" though I'll play ball. In my ideal Stalinist utopia someone doing this would get a stern talking to and be compelled to stay clean or get an abortion. I don't think fetuses have rights but birthing someone into the world who you inflicted all sorts of defects and health issues on for no good goddamn reason is clearly violating the rights of a real person.
I lodge my vote for social Stalinism. :thumbup1:

[Ele'ill]

If you're drinking and smoking while pregnant in a socialist society where there would no doubt be extensive health and educational resources for prospective mothers you're a fucking idiot. Though this may come as a shock to some, most people are actually of average intelligence, and not fucking idiots. I'd imagine with the appropriate level of access to social services this would be a rare problem indeed.

Since this is kind of one of those "OMG BUT WHAT IF THREADS" though I'll play ball. In my ideal Stalinist utopia someone doing this would get a stern talking to and be compelled to stay clean or get an abortion. I don't think fetuses have rights but birthing someone into the world who you inflicted all sorts of defects and health issues on for no good goddamn reason is clearly violating the rights of a real person.

It would be intentional harm done thus the issue of mental illness would perhaps arise in regards to the mother.

[Che a chara]

Since this is kind of one of those "OMG BUT WHAT IF THREADS" though I'll play ball. In my ideal Stalinist utopia someone doing this would get a stern talking to and be compelled to stay clean or get an abortion. I don't think fetuses have rights but birthing someone into the world who you inflicted all sorts of defects and health issues on for no good goddamn reason is clearly violating the rights of a real person.

that's poor form there. the 'state' has no right to interfere on forcing abortion. that is inhumane, degrading and totally un-socialistic.

in-depth advice should be given to the woman and yes a stern talking too, but i agree with


If you're drinking and smoking while pregnant in a socialist society where there would no doubt be extensive health and educational resources for prospective mothers you're a fucking idiot. Though this may come as a shock to some, most people are actually of average intelligence, and not fucking idiots. I'd imagine with the appropriate level of access to social services this would be a rare problem indeed.

But still many hormonal issues that woman go through during the pregnancy could lead to the woman looking to something "stronger" for comfort as a bit of relief.

[Ele'ill]

But still many hormonal issues that woman go through during the pregnancy could lead to the woman looking to something "stronger" for comfort as a bit of relief.

There are prescription drugs that can take care of that.

[Glenn Beck]

that's poor form there. the 'state' has no right to interfere on forcing abortion. that is inhumane, degrading and totally un-socialistic.

in-depth advice should be given to the woman and yes a stern talking too, but i agree with



But still many hormonal issues that woman go through during the pregnancy could lead to the woman looking to something "stronger" for comfort as a bit of relief.

I never mentioned mandating abortion, if you don't want to stay clean don't bear kids, abortions a great way to avoid bearing kids. I think it's a pretty reasonable choice.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

Since this is kind of one of those "OMG BUT WHAT IF THREADS" though I'll play ball.

That's definitely not the intent I had when I made this thread. I apologize if it comes across that way. It just appears to me that many among the left have an issue with telling women what they should and should not do with their bodies intermeshing somewhat with the debate over the concept of "women's autonomy" and what not. Thought it would make for interesting debate is all.

But if I really had my heart set on starting an "OMG BUT WHAT IF THREAD", I'd ask something along the lines of "How would a communist society respond to an extraterrestrial invasion?" or "What if a democratic majority voted to castrate all men?" You know, something that'll surely galvanize interest.

[Ele'ill]

"How would a communist society respond to an extraterrestrial invasion?"

This thread is now about this

Ready go

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

If you're drinking and smoking while pregnant in a socialist society where there would no doubt be extensive health and educational resources for prospective mothers you're a fucking idiot. Though this may come as a shock to some, most people are actually of average intelligence, and not fucking idiots. I'd imagine with the appropriate level of access to social services this would be a rare problem indeed.

Since this is kind of one of those "OMG BUT WHAT IF THREADS" though I'll play ball. In my ideal Stalinist utopia someone doing this would get a stern talking to and be compelled to stay clean or get an abortion. I don't think fetuses have rights but birthing someone into the world who you inflicted all sorts of defects and health issues on for no good goddamn reason is clearly violating the rights of a real person.

There are always slippery slope issues, but I agree more or less with this post. I don't know about policies and the best form of "harm minimization," but I do agree with the general idea that such practices should be decreased in the most utility maximizing fashion, more or less.

If someone saw a pregnant women smoking, asked if they're getting an abortion, then took the cigarette away, I wouldn't consider them as having done anything wrong. Of course, the mother will get mad. There will be a conflict. And most likely, the mother just ends up out the cost of a cigarette and one more toxic stick ends up in a landfill.

As with most things, education is probably the most effective. However, I think we shouldn't underestimate the power of social pressure. It's quite effective at minimizing harm in many circumstances. There is not guarantee that everyone in a communist society will be convinced by reason and a decent enough human being to do what's right.

[9]

That person believed that cocaine had no negative health effects and should be given to children. At the same time, she felt that formula corporations were being oppressed by being barred from advertising by the breastfeeding lobby.

I think the left would do well to dismiss out of hand the hedonistic narcissism of fanatics.

Well, I happen to think TC had shit politics, and yet from what I've read of her post in the linked thread, I think her position on this issue was very much on target, as were her positions on many issues regarding sex, gender, and womens' reproductive rights. And actually, just this morning I linked to another one of her posts on abortion in the OI learning thread on the topic because it's the best refutation of the so-called "pro-life" (i.e. pro-forced-pregnancy) position I have read on this site. So perhaps we can refrain from unnecessary character assassinations, and if people disagree with the specific points she articulated in that link, they can explain why they disagree and posit a counterargument, rather than using slander to discredit TC and her position on this issue by implication.


If you're drinking and smoking while pregnant in a socialist society where there would no doubt be extensive health and educational resources for prospective mothers you're a fucking idiot.

Yes, precisely. Which is why doctors would obviously make available to pregnant women who intend to carry the pregnancy to term, thorough information on the potential effects of this behavior, and to explain the information in depth and ensure that it is understood. Someone who is pregnant because she wants to have a child and intends to give birth, who has been informed of and consequently understands the risks of this sort of behavior will have to be trusted not to engage in it to a reckless extent. But this kind of hypothetical about state measures to exercise control over women's reproduction is simply a continuation of the persistent, deeply sexist discourse of dictating to women at the threat of force which aspects of their own reproductive processes they are and aren't entitled to exercise control over, and that is really the bottom line.
People seem to absolutely panic at the thought of a future scenario in which women have been liberated to such an extent that no one other than the woman herself would have the authority to dictate the terms of her own reproductive process. A lot of people find the notion of such a situation absolutely horrifying, so they parade about these "what if" scenarios (such as the one in this thread) disguised in all sorts of "reasonable" and "practical" euphemisms in order to preserve their sense of assurance that, even in a hypothetical future socialist society, you don't have to worry because on some level women will retain their status as property and they will still on some level have the terms of the most intimate details of their lives dictated to them by the state.

That wasn't actually directed at "Glen Beck", BTW, even though I quoted him, but at the thread starter and the large percentage of people both on this site and in general who squirm at the idea of women having full control of all the conditions of their own sexual and reproductive affairs, and so concoct all sorts of "legitimate" excuses for why these conditions need to remain in some capacity the domain of the state.


that's poor form there. the 'state' has no right to interfere on forcing abortion. that is inhumane, degrading and totally un-socialistic.

Funny, because you have no problem with the 'state' interfering to force a woman to give birth (i.e. the "pro-life" position), but I suppose forcing her to abide by "X, Y, and Z conditions of an efficient incubator" is a step too far.


It just appears to me that many among the left have an issue with telling women what they should and should not do with their bodies

Too few - even among "the left" - have an issue with it, actually, although I'm always relieved to meet people who do. You, on the other hand, seem to be bothered by the presence of people who don't feel entitled to tell a woman what she "should and should not do" (read: can and cannot do) with her own body; is that an accurate inference?

[whore]

be compelled to stay clean or get an abortion

clearly violating the rights of a real person.
i agree. compelling someone is quite clearly violating the rights of a real person!

compelling someone to get an abortion, or to "stay clean" is not an acceptable solution for a free society.

[khad]

Well, I happen to think TC had shit politics, and yet from what I've read of her post in the linked thread, I think her position on this issue was very much on target
That the fetus is a parasite and that the question of harming it is a matter of self-defense? Please, spare me. I fully support a woman's right to an abortion, but these ultra-left arguments make my eyes roll, and you'll get even weirder reactions from the rest of society.

[Demogorgon]

That the fetus is a parasite and that the question of harming it is a matter of self-defense? Please, spare me. I fully support a woman's right to an abortion, but these ultra-left arguments make my eyes roll, and you'll get even weirder reactions from the rest of society.
Those weren't ultra-left arguments, she lifted them straight from Murray Rothbard. That the board went through a phase of taking them as leftist dogma is rather regrettable.

At any rate, I don't want to drag up that idiot too much, but you have to put her perspective on the issue into perspective. Her views weren't based on freedom or anything, she just didn't like children. She had little problem with forced abortion, opposed statutory rape laws, was against laws banning child labour and providing education (again this is all taken from Rothbard) and so on. She was a troll pushing Ancap views here and seeing how many people would buy them if dressed up in leftist language. Well either that or she was just very confused.

So it's best not to take her too seriously on the subject really.

[9]

That the fetus is a parasite and that the question of harming it is a matter of self-defense? Please, spare me. I fully support a woman's right to an abortion, but these ultra-left arguments make my eyes roll, and you'll get even weirder reactions from the rest of society.

What is the problem with either of these points, exactly…? Stating them isn’t really sufficient. Particularly in light of the fact that an unwanted fetus very much fits with the definition of a parasite, even if it may offend some sensibilities:



Originally Posted by dictionary.com

par·a·site
n.
Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.


parasite

An organism that lives off or in another organism, obtaining nourishment and protection while offering no benefit in return.

But then, advocacy of socialist revolution offends plenty of sensibilities too, much more than the fate of a fetus for that matter. So that’s sort of a shitty argument, IMO.

In any case, if I’m remembering the specifics of the “self-defense” argument correctly, TC took this line on the basis that - even if we accept that a fetus is a living “human being”, a living human being still has no right to live (literally) at the expense of another person, causing a tremendous amount of pain and bodily harm (which has the potential to result in death), and on that basis (again, this is if we were to accept that a fetus = a person, and we don‘t), aborting it would still be justified on grounds of self-defense.


Those weren't ultra-left arguments, she lifted them straight from Murray Rothbard. That the board went through a phase of taking them as leftist dogma is rather regrettable.

At any rate, I don't want to drag up that idiot too much, but you have to put her perspective on the issue into perspective. Her views weren't based on freedom or anything, she just didn't like children. She had little problem with forced abortion, opposed statutory rape laws, was against laws banning child labour and providing education (again this is all taken from Rothbard) and so on. She was a troll pushing Ancap views here and seeing how many people would buy them if dressed up in leftist language. Well either that or she was just very confused.

So it's best not to take her too seriously on the subject really.

And here again, we see that people can’t address an argument so they instead discredit the person who made the argument, even though she does not come here anymore and isn’t the subject of debate. Honestly, grow the hell up and deal with the argument, or go fucking troll somewhere else, you child.

[Demogorgon]

What is the problem with either of these points, exactly…? Stating them isn’t really sufficient. Particularly in light of the fact that an unwanted fetus very much fits with the definition of a parasite, even if it may offend some sensibilities:
There is the troubling fact though is that a fetus is of the same species as the woman it is in and is contributing something as it is carrying on the mother's genetic code.

At any rate though, what some of TC's groupies missed here was that the point in arguments about abortion was to convince those who were skeptical that it should be legal, not to entrench their view that it should be illegal. Anyone not familiar with anarcho-capitalism would think "parasite" arguments were a parody of the pro-choice position, it would never convince them. Of course TC herself was never truly pro-choice because she accepted forced abortion under some circumstances, but you get the idea. She didn't care about actually convincing people, just about the attention. The fact that this substantially weakened the argument in favour of abortion didn't bother her.


And here again, we see that people can’t address an argument so they instead discredit the person who made the argument, even though she does not come here anymore and isn’t the subject of debate. Honestly, grow the hell up and deal with the argument, or go fucking troll somewhere else, you child.
You think I can't address ancap theory? Really? Maybe you should read my posts before you make ridiculous statements like that. Or read the debates I had with TC herself. My goal at this stage is just to ward people away from her views. Her position was basically one of "feminist capitalism" mixed with implicit homophobia and explicit transphobia. It is not something that I think people should be seriously looking at.

[9]

There is the troubling fact though is that a fetus is of the same species as the woman it is in and is contributing something as it is carrying on the mother's genetic code.

At any rate though, what some of TC's groupies missed here was that the point in arguments about abortion was to convince those who were skeptical that it should be legal, not to entrench their view that it should be illegal. Anyone not familiar with anarcho-capitalism would think "parasite" arguments were a parody of the pro-choice position, it would never convince them. Of course TC herself was never truly pro-choice because she accepted forced abortion under some circumstances, but you get the idea. She didn't care about actually convincing people, just about the attention. The fact that this substantially weakened the argument in favour of abortion didn't bother her.

You think I can't address ancap theory? Really? Maybe you should read my posts before you make ridiculous statements like that. Or read the debates I had with TC herself. My goal at this stage is just to ward people away from her views. Her position was basically one of "feminist capitalism" mixed with implicit homophobia and explicit transphobia. It is not something that I think people should be seriously looking at.


I don’t care about TC’s other views, nor do I care about semantics. Strangely, though, I tend to think her argument actually might have begun to make Quarterback begin to actually question the legitimacy of advocating forced pregnancy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1673521&postcount=152), in which case your entire point just failed. I think her argument was excellent and the fact that it dumped the euphemisms which plague all discourse on this subject and thus had the ability to shock is a large part of what made it an excellent argument. That you people are coming into this thread and taking issue with a word she used - a semantic fucking disagreement - about a subject which isn’t even the topic of this thread, makes me seriously question your underlying motivation.

[Demogorgon]

I don’t care about TC’s other views, nor do I care about semantics. Strangely, though, I tend to think her argument actually might have begun to make Quarterback begin to actually question the legitimacy of advocating forced pregnancy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1673521&postcount=152), in which case your entire point just failed. I think her argument was excellent and the fact that it dumped the euphemisms which plague all discourse on this subject and thus had the ability to shock is a large part of what made it an excellent argument. That you people are coming into this thread and taking issue with a word she used - a semantic fucking disagreement - about a subject which isn’t even the topic of this thread, makes me seriously question your underlying motivation.
It wasn't a semantic point at all. She used the word she felt was most guaranteed to cause offence because her goal was attention. Also of course-and this is the little problem you are dancing around-it was copy and pasted from Rothbard as an attempt to subtly push ancap views on the board either for the fun of seeing if people would buy it or simply because she no longer new what was left anymore. And you do need to put what she said into the context of her entire spectrum of questionable views because they all tie in with one another, not least because a lot of them boil back to the "self ownership" she defended.

Anyway out in the real world try using the most crass arguments possible concerning abortion and see if you win people over or alienate them. When the goal becomes attempting to win people over rather than attempting to shock your parents you will find these arguments lose much of their potency.

Now obviously I did deeply dislike her. She was one of the single most unpleasant individuals I have ever encountered on the internet, but part of the reason I disliked her was the sheer awful implications of her various views. Buying into what she said was one of the fastest paths to the right a naive leftist can take.

[9]

It wasn't a semantic point at all. She used the word she felt was most guaranteed to cause offence because her goal was attention. Also of course-and this is the little problem you are dancing around-it was copy and pasted from Rothbard as an attempt to subtly push ancap views on the board either for the fun of seeing if people would buy it or simply because she no longer new what was left anymore. And you do need to put what she said into the context of her entire spectrum of questionable views because they all tie in with one another, not least because a lot of them boil back to the "self ownership" she defended.

Anyway out in the real world try using the most crass arguments possible concerning abortion and see if you win people over or alienate them. When the goal becomes attempting to win people over rather than attempting to shock your parents you will find these arguments lose much of their potency.

Now obviously I did deeply dislike her. She was one of the single most unpleasant individuals I have ever encountered on the internet, but part of the reason I disliked her was the sheer awful implications of her various views. Buying into what she said was one of the fastest paths to the right a naive leftist can take.

I’m sorry, you’re too fucking ridiculous to humor with a response. Get some help.

[Demogorgon]

I’m sorry, you’re too fucking ridiculous to humor with a response. Get some help.


And here again, we see that people can’t address an argument so they instead discredit the person who made the argument:rolleyes:One wanders who that was addressed at.

Of course the other question is what part of what I said is ridiculous. That leftists should not be using Murray Rothbard as the basis for their views or that the goal of argument is to win people over and not to alienate them?

[9]

:rolleyes:One wanders who that was addressed at.

Of course the other question is what part of what I said is ridiculous. That leftists should not be using Murray Rothbard as the basis for their views or that the goal of argument is to win people over and not to alienate them?


I don’t give a shit what Murray Rothbard said about the issue of fucking abortion, it is irrelevant, nor do I want to continue hearing your bizarre attempts to slander by ridiculous association. Your only contribution to this discussion has been trolling.
It is funny to me that people like you are only concerned about alienating reactionaries. It is never a question of alienating women from revolutionary politics because we insist on having discussions regarding how much control they should be permitted to exercise over their own bodies; no, we are more concerned about not startling reactionaries by using forceful rhetoric or terminology which might offend the social-sexual morality of right-wing conservatives.
And I can only imagine what you must tell people about the rest of your politics. “Yes, I advocate violent socialist revolution, but it’s OK, because a fetus IS DEFINITELY NOT a parasite”.

Honestly, I’m done engaging your trolling.

[khad]

It isn't slander when it's true.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/slander/

Slander is a subcategory of defamation. The basic elements of a claim of slander include;


a defamatory statement;
published to third parties; and
which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.

[9]

It isn't slander when it's true.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/slander/


Yes, clearly I should have added a footnote explaining that when I said “slander”, I wasn’t using the legal definition of the word.
I love all these completely irrelevant semantic arguments, though. They’re obviously great filler for when you want to talk but have nothing to say.

[Che a chara]

Funny, because you have no problem with the 'state' interfering to force a woman to give birth (i.e. the "pro-life" position), but I suppose forcing her to abide by "X, Y, and Z conditions of an efficient incubator" is a step too far.

ahh that's total bollox. can you show me the proof where i said this ? i would never, ever force anyone to give birth. i have never, ever said this. and another false accusation is that i am "pro-life" or even anti-abortion, more poo !! :lol:

[Demogorgon]

I don’t give a shit what Murray Rothbard said about the issue of fucking abortion, it is irrelevant, nor do I want to continue hearing your bizarre attempts to slander by ridiculous association. Your only contribution to this discussion has been trolling.
It is funny to me that people like you are only concerned about alienating reactionaries. It is never a question of alienating women from revolutionary politics because we insist on having discussions regarding how much control they should be permitted to exercise over their own bodies; no, we are more concerned about not startling reactionaries by using forceful rhetoric or terminology which might offend the social-sexual morality of right-wing conservatives.
And I can only imagine what you must tell people about the rest of your politics. “Yes, I advocate violent socialist revolution, but it’s OK, because a fetus IS DEFINITELY NOT a parasite”.

Honestly, I’m done engaging your trolling.It is irrelevant that extreme right wing arguments are being promoted on RevLeft? Calling it a ridiculous association simply shows that you don't understand the issue being discussed. She took a right wing argument from a right wing source that used right wing reasoning and you don't think that that issue should be addressed or people should be warned about what they are being sold?

As for your "alienating reactionaries" rubbish, it may have escaped your notice, but we aren't playing a game here of being "lefter than thou" but actually talking about a real world issue which affects large numbers of people. The issue of reproductive freedom is vital to gender equality and in order to promote it you have to convince people that it is a good thing. Using crass arguments that set the cause back might be wonderful when it comes to pissing off your parents but it actually harms the rights of women.

It is the ultimate case of being divorced from the real world concerns when you think it is more important to take part in rebellious posturing (using very right wing positions no less) than it is to fight for the rights of half the population. The fact that you think it is trolling to point that out speaks volumes about you.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

don't[/I] feel entitled to tell a woman what she "should and should not do" (read: can and cannot do) with her own body; is that an accurate inference?

Maybe it was a poor choice of words on my part that led you to arrive at that conclusion(that I'm "bothered" by people who oppose imposing restrictions on women), but I repeat that I personally feel that compulsion is unwarranted in this situation. If anything, the position that I articulated in my first post is a lot more forgiving of the women who drink, smoke, etc. while pregnant, than other positions(even among leftists) I've read in this thread so far.

[Glenn Beck]

God forbid someone is tongue-in-cheek on revleft. Even in my sarcastic post I never stated that the state should mandate women's reproductive choices, rather I said more or less what I believe: that it would be so vanishingly rare for individuals to choose to do such a thing in a socialist society where the resources and education required for reproductive freedom are basically taken for granted that it barely deserves contemplation. In the case that it does happen doctors, friends, and whoever else is close to the person in question should intervene and tell them to cut that shit out. If you think it's vile and authoritarian for people to be verbally discouraged by their fellows in society from choosing to engage in destructive and unhealthy behavior then I don't really know what to say to you. Likewise, if you are offended that I think it is immoral and irresponsible to knowingly inflict potentially life-long harm on a person by using teratogenic substances during a pregnancy that one has decided to carry to term.

Of course Apikoros is absolutely right, there is a discourse at play here with a subtext that could be perceived as sexist insofar as it submits the sexual and reproductive agency of women as a matter for regulation by an implicitly male state Authority. I like to think I'm a pretty charitable guy and I'm not really getting any particularly nasty vibes from the OP so I'm more inclined to believe that the sentiment that motivated this thread was more a simplistic projection of health problems emergent from modern day social issues into a hypothetical socialist future. Still, the fact that discussions on issues like these tend to venture down troubling paths that reflect a preoccupation with managing the behavior of women as objects is still something worth pointing out. If nothing else it gets people thinking about the implications of the way we talk about things.

From what I can see though the OP explicitly problematized the idea of legally delineating what a woman can do while pregnant as potentially heading into a slippery slope towards a so-called "pro-life" position. He also asked the right question, in this case, which is "what would drive a woman to do such a thing" (Which would be an interesting discussion on it's own that would ground things in reality and obviate a lot of the mental gymnastics some folks seem to think is necessary to resolve this social ill)? As well as opining that a coercive policy would have an unacceptable toll on the rights and well being of women. I'm just not seeing the nefarious sexism or pathological fear of female sexual agency in that particular post. Of course I wouldn't be opposed to being informed that I'm wrong about this because my view of the situation is being obscured by my dick. I'd probably be flattered to hear it :D.

I can't vouch for some of the other posters, this is OI after all. LOL @ the shit about "shunning". It's great how taking anarchism seriously tends to lead to us all living like a bunch of nosy Amish all up in eachother's business.

[whore]

@Glenn Beck (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=16805), your post didn't seem sarcastic. it seemed quite serious. it seriously seemed as if you wanted to force some women (those who refused to give up "smoking, drinking and doping while pregnant") to have abortions. of course, you don't need a state to do that. (not all possible societies without a state are anarchistic. anarchism is much more than a simplistic objection to "the state").

and as for the nosy amish comment, i'm (obviously) an anarchist, and i explicitly posted that i objected to the "shunning" suggested by another member. looks like your stereotyping fails again!

[Quail]

The most you should really do is provide education. It's not right to judge women for doing things that could potentially be harmful to their unborn child without knowing the individual woman's circumstances. I don't think that it's responsible to smoke, drink or take drugs during pregnancy, which is why people need to be educated, but in the end it is the woman's body.

[Meridian]

Taking this into consideration, what do you think, if anything should be done to address this issue? Should a woman be penalized for engaging in such behavior if she’s pregnant? Most leftists I’m sure would object that this approach is anti-women and chauvinistic, of course.
Obviously women should be penalized for such idiocy.

Women are not to be exempt from decent ways of behavior. When you have a child, you have responsibility. If you did not want the child you should of had an abortion.

[sarmchain]

with abortion the fetus remains a fetus forever and it is not immoral because it hasn't and will never expience life when it comes to drinking and such during pregenancy and the mother intends to have the child then it will not remain a fetus/part of her body and her actions effect another human being maybe not at the time the acts are done but in the future when the child is born and he/she will never be able to fully enjoy life due too his/her mothers actions and i think the mother should be held accountable the same as if she damaged the baby's brain by shaking it after it was born (this of course assumes the mothers knows fully what her actions could result in, yet refuses to stop them or abort the child)

[whore]

Obviously women should be penalized for such idiocy.

Women are not to be exempt from decent ways of behavior. When you have a child, you have responsibility. If you did not want the child you should of had an abortion.
[/SIZE]
how would you suggest penalizing these women?

with abortion the fetus remains a fetus forever and it is not immoral because it hasn't and will never expience life when it comes to drinking and such during pregenancy and the mother intends to have the child then it will not remain a fetus/part of her body and her actions effect another human being maybe not at the time the acts are done but in the future when the child is born and he/she will never be able to fully enjoy life due too his/her mothers actions and i think the mother should be held accountable the same as if she damaged the baby's brain by shaking it after it was born (this of course assumes the mothers knows fully what her actions could result in, yet refuses to stop them or abort the child)
what do you think should happen to the mother?

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

Obviously women should be penalized for such idiocy.

Women are not to be exempt from decent ways of behavior. When you have a child, you have responsibility. If you did not want the child you should of had an abortion.


Before you jump to conclusions about them merely indulging in "idiocy", why don't you first consider the situations that many of these women find themselves in. For example, rates of alcohol consumption among women increase significantly when they're abused by their spouses, unemployed etc. Also some pregnant women smoke, drink, etc. because they're not even aware that they are pregnant. Should we not take these possibilities into account?

Btw, whore's question is apt: What sort of punishment do you propose?

[Lynx]

A person has to be declared a danger to themselves or to others before coercive measures can be used. Women who demonstrate the intent to harm themselves may have their rights removed through court order.
Another situation is when someone is declared mentally incompetent, or unable to make decisions regarding their own welfare. Again, a court order may remove their rights and appoint someone as (I forget the legal term).

Only other alternatives are helpful incentives and support from friends, etc.

[Outinleftfield]

with abortion the fetus remains a fetus forever and it is not immoral because it hasn't and will never expience life when it comes to drinking and such during pregenancy and the mother intends to have the child then it will not remain a fetus/part of her body and her actions effect another human being maybe not at the time the acts are done but in the future when the child is born and he/she will never be able to fully enjoy life due too his/her mothers actions and i think the mother should be held accountable the same as if she damaged the baby's brain by shaking it after it was born (this of course assumes the mothers knows fully what her actions could result in, yet refuses to stop them or abort the child)

I support a woman's right to choose and it's true that a fetus that is aborted isn't harmed because it never gets to live to experience that harm, but I think most people who are alive, even those with disabilities are glad to be alive. If from the victims point of view they are better off because their mother chose to give birth rather than to abort how can we justify punishing the mother? We shouldn't ignore the perspective of "victims" including the question of whether they consider themselves victims at all. Furthermore, a majority of the time when a woman drinks or does drugs during pregnancy the baby comes out fine. It's just that there is a significant increase in the risk of problems. By the same logic two people with the same recessive condition should be forbidden from having children together, because 100% of the time their kids will be born with the same condition. Most are responsible enough to seek out alternative means of childbirth but nobody suggests making it illegal for them to have children together. But you would have to following the logic of banning women who do drugs or drink during pregnancy from having children.

[whore]

A person has to be declared a danger to themselves or to others before coercive measures can be used. Women who demonstrate the intent to harm themselves may have their rights removed through court order.
Another situation is when someone is declared mentally incompetent, or unable to make decisions regarding their own welfare. Again, a court order may remove their rights and appoint someone as (I forget the legal term).

Only other alternatives are helpful incentives and support from friends, etc.
if i cut myself, why does any one have a right to remove my right to self-determination? if i want to kill myself, what right does anyone have to stop me?
my body, my life. you can fuck off out of my utopia if you want to use a court system to prevent me doing what i want with my body.

we support abortion because a woman's body is her own, abortion is her right. why would you then turn around and say that someone who is a danger to themselves should be coerced into not hurting themselves?

[Ele'ill]

Isn't suicide a felony?

[whore]

Isn't suicide a felony?
that's right. kill yourself and the state will punish you for it! (very few countries punish people who attempt suicide).

helping someone kill themselves, thats a crime though.

[Lynx]

Assisted suicide is punishable in some countries, so anyone who wishes to end their life must do so alone.

If you attract attention to yourself, there are laws which can be applied to take away your rights.

[9]

Well, anyway, I don't see what suicide has to do with whether or not people think the bodies of pregnant women are property of the state, to be regulated accordingly.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I went off topic. I vote splitting the topic!

There are legitimate reasons to prevent people from committing suicide in certain cases, even if they clearly want to do so. Sometimes a course of treatment takes a sufficient amount of time to work, and the person isn't in the right state of mind to make that decision. A society that disallows intervention against "any" suicide is essentially promoting a eugenics program with respect to the mentally ill.

Rights are just buzzwords. For just about every right, you can make up an exception to the rule. Thus, the foundation of rights lies in something else whether it be utility, contracts, or something else. Actions are easy to rationalize. Pragmatically speaking, people only need the ability to infringe on freedom. They can make up the justifications as they go along.

I don't like bringing laws into moral and political discussions about "how thing should be." Laws rarely reflect how society should actually work. And assisted suicide needs to be available. Humans are designed to survive. Some people will even continue living when they are completely miserable, have no prospects, etc. They're still afraid of committing suicide because people just aren't inclined towards ending their life. It's perfectly reasonable to allow people to tell others to help them. It's not their fault they aren't biologically capable of enacting their will. You can temporarily give up you freedom for your own benefit. As long as the person continues to act in your interests, you could object and they might still legitimately ignore you. See the common Odysseus example where he has his crew time him to a ship so he can't be lured by the sirens, if I recall correctly.

Freedom and autonomy is important for maximizing quality of life. Even if you can get the same society with tyranny, people are happier free. The issue is that where freedom fails to achieve the correct results, it can temporarily be suspended when there is legitimate cause to do so.

There are all kinds of slippery slope problems, but you can't stop trying to improve society because things might lead to trouble. We can't let people go around harming themselves without trying to intervene. And in "some" cases, the best way to do that is direct and often physical coercion.

State punishment of suicide is ridiculous for a wide variety of reasons. For one, it makes suicide seem wrong. This is not always the case. Secondly, punishing suicidal individuals serves little benefit to society and simply wastes resources. Mandatory psychiatric evaluation "might" (not sure) be reasonable.

Abortion is a non-issue, really, as consideration is only warranted once the fetus can feel pain. And at that point, there are strong arguments in favor of a pro-choice position.

I think most leftists, myself included, try to sweep everything under the rug. Education and the removal of capitalism will eliminate suicide (ridiculous). Anyone who chooses to commit suicide is acting in their interests (usually not true). There are a lot of strange arguments against coercion because, frankly, we all dislike coercion and want to minimize it.

The problem is that both an individual and community that are unwilling to utilize coercion to protect people from themselves is failing to maximize the good within that society. Yes, we want a society with no coercion or self-harm. However, letting everyone commit suicide won't help such a society achieve that goal. While simultaneously working towards other suicide reduction methods, it's important that a society is willing to infringe on freedoms for the benefit of its citizens.

I want a society where people collectively work together, foster a sense of unity, care about others, and work towards common goals. I don't want everyone isolated and simply using one another in some sort of "game theoretic manner" as some anarchists, especially right-anarchists, seem to support. A society that would actually refuse to stop anyone from suicide sounds like a plot for a dystopic novel, not a vision for an ideal society.

[Comrade Anarchist]

it is up to the woman to decide what she wants to do with her body while pregnant and no one else. If she doesn't want the kid and wants to do harmful things that is her decision and she will face the consequences and unfortunately so will the kid. So education and easy access to contraceptives.

[Outinleftfield]

I went off topic. I vote splitting the topic!

There are legitimate reasons to prevent people from committing suicide in certain cases, even if they clearly want to do so. Sometimes a course of treatment takes a sufficient amount of time to work, and the person isn't in the right state of mind to make that decision. A society that disallows intervention against "any" suicide is essentially promoting a eugenics program with respect to the mentally ill.

But how do you determine what the "right" state of mind is or what is "mental illness" and what is simply "mental difference"? There is biology behind everything. You can look at brains of people with different personalities and they will look different. When people change what they think about brain scans show changes in different parts of the brain. What makes one person's mind "right" and another person's mind "wrong"?

There are hardly any mental disorders that are diagnosed by running chemical tests, and there is a lot of controversy on what the causes are or even if a disorder is one disorder or several even with completely different underlying causes. "Autism" was called "childhood schizophrenia" for a long time and now some theories say NMDA excitotoxicity(overactive NMDA receptors) could be a factor in autism but underperforming NMDA receptors could be a factor behind schizophrenia.

There's also the social aspect. Why is the mind considered disfunctional and would it even be disfunctional without capitalism? Even evidence for genetic causes could involve environmental aspects that aren't easily detected. If an environmental cause is experienced by almost everybody in society and a gene predisposes a person to react a certain way in response to that cause then its likely that society will not notice the environmental cause at all. Studies into the environmental circumstances of people who have these genes but who don't have any symptoms of the disorder could show a lot about how common environmental experiences affect the mind.

[Sturzo]

My guess a pregnant woman involved in substance abuse is probably suffering from a wider domestic problem in her life that needs to be addressed.